ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No.188 of 2025

DATE

ORDER WITH SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs

 

For hearing of bail application

---------------------------------------------

26.05.2025

           

            Mr. Javed Ali Brohi, advocate for applicant

            Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

            M/s Muhammad Dawood Narejo, Kamran Ali and Mujahid Hussain Bhutto, advocates for complainant

            IO/DSP Qurban Mallah of PS Sujawal

            ------------------------------------

            Applicant/accused Muhammad Saleh son of Ladho seeks post arrest bail in FIR No.114/2022, registered at P.S. Sujawal for offence under sections 302, 120-B, 109, 201, 34, PPC, after rejection of his bail plea by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sujawal, vide order dated 07.11.2024.

 

2.         Facts of instant case as disclosed in the impugned order are that on 12.06.2023 Abdul Sattar son of Bag Ali Jatoi lodged FIR at PS Sujawal stating therein that his maternal nephew Ismail son of Ghulam Muhammad Jatoi aged 41 years was dealing in cattle business and Sikandar son of Bachayo Gaho resident of village Gul Muhammad Gaho obtained loan from him. On 08.06.2023 complainant was present in his house when deceased Ismail went to Darro City to receive the said credit amount from Sikandar Gaho. Thereafter, he did not return said night. Complainant tried to contact him but his mobile phone was switched off. On 09.06.2023 complainant reached Darro city and contacted Sikandar Gaho, who disclosed that on 08.06.2023 he along with Saleh Mallah and Khamelo Gujrati Bhangi and others reached Thatta with Ismail and after withdrawal of amount from Khushhali Bank handed over the money to Ismail and Ismail left Thatta for Tando Muhammad Khan. Thereafter, complainant tried to contact on the mobile phone of Ismail but his phone was switched off. On 10.06.2023 complainant along with Javed son of Ghulam Muhammad and relative Ali Asghar son of Muhammad Ilyas Jatoi reached Darro city and met with Sikandar Gaho who after compulsion disclosed that on 08.06.2023 he along with Saleh Mallah and Khamelo Gujrati Bhangi, with the help of his other friends over dispute of money brought Ismail to village Amb Sodho, committed his murder by causing hatchet injuries and dead body was thrown inside fish pond. Complainant visited at fish pond and found dead body with injuries. Hence this FIR.

3.         Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case; that there is extrajudicial confession of co-accused, which is inadmissible, therefore, his case requires further inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC.

 

4.         On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, assisted by learned counsel for complainant, opposed for grant of bail on the ground that applicant is nominated in the FIR with the allegation that he committed murder of deceased; that alleged offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC.

 

5.         Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh, learned counsel for complainant and perused the material available on record. 

 

6.         It is alleged in the FIR that co-accused Sikandar has made extrajudicial confession regarding involvement of applicant in the alleged offence. No doubt statement of co-accused before police or private person is not admissible under Article 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 but its Article 40 pertains to "evidence of fact discovered in consequence of information given by accused." It essentially deals with how a fact discovered because of information provided by an accused person can be used as evidence. Since the applicant is nominated in the FIR with the allegation that he committed murder of deceased and the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC, which disentitles him for grant of bail unless he has to prove his case for further inquiry. Learned counsel for applicant mainly contended that learned trial Court has granted bail to co-accused Muhammad Rafiq. Perusal of bail granting order of co-accused Muhammad Rafiq shows that only role of abetment has been assigned to him whereas role assigned to the present applicant is different from that of co-accused Muhammad Rafiq, therefore, rule of consistency does not apply in instant case. Resultantly, instant criminal bail application is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the case of the applicant expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months.

 

7.         Needless to mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case of either party at trial.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         J U D G E

Gulsher/PS